Brent Huigens - PWCC. Do you really want to keep this game up? I'm ready boss.

[Cliff Bowman]

Incredible!!! Now all of his posts say 70!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Incredible!!! Now all of his posts say 70!

Heh...he was posting all day today but only Leon and I could see him. I figured Leon had put him in Purgatory, but now see it was a software error.

[Leon]

That was my mistake. I was seeing his posts too so didn't understand the issue ...LOL (sort of)

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Heh...he was posting all day today but only Leon and I could see him. I figured Leon had put him in Purgatory, but now see it was a software error.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by iowadoc77

And the makers of Zima!

What about Zapple? They don't get no respect!!! (Poor grammar on purpose.)

[vintagetoppsguy]

PSA does not require a card to be in their possession before removing it from the pop report. I remember several years ago, there was a thread on the CU message boards about a '66 Killebrew that was graded a 10, but looked like a 5. Most agreed it was a mechanical error. PSA contacted the eBay seller to try and get the card back, the seller refused to cooperate. PSA removed the card from the registry. It does happen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

PSA does not require a card to be in their possession before removing it from the pop report. I remember several years ago, there was a thread on the CU message boards about a '66 Killebrew that was graded a 10, but looked like a 5. Most agreed it was a mechanical error. PSA contacted the eBay seller to try and get the card back, the seller refused to cooperate. PSA removed the card from the registry. It does happen.

This is a 50k card. And we arent getting the whole story imo.

[Whodunit]

If PSA doesnt require that a graded item be in their possession, or evidence of destruction, etc, why is the Wagner still in the pop when everybody knows it is altered as well?......and, yes, i realize this question was raised earlier today, but I dont think it was ever answered directly. This was also a topic of discussion for me today with other fellow hobbyists (while I couldnt post).

[Whodunit]

Peter,

IMO, we'll never know the whole story.....especially the part about who won it at auction with Brent and where it is today, unless John takes him to court. If that happens, I truly want to have my testimony subpoenaed. I simply keep finding out more and more bc I refuse to let it die after how matters were handled. This is obviously personal to me; not bc of the money, but bc someone I trusted lied to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The big song and dance during the auction about psa reviewing it and blessing it, then after the auction for no apparent reason they pull a 180 and deregister it while leaving the card out there? Cmon. It doesnt add up. Bs meter on high but then again nothing new there.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The big song and dance during the auction about psa reviewing it and blessing it, then after the auction for no apparent reason they pull a 180 and deregister it while leaving the card out there? Cmon. It doesnt add up. Bs meter on high but then again nothing new there.

Im absolutely not buying that argument! I never believed it while they were saying it was at PSA during the auction, and I dang sure dont think PSA blessed it after the obvious alterations were revealed. Now, theyre discussing it with somebody who doesnt even own or possess the card? Behind the new owners back? Yeah, BS meter going lunar on that one.

[ngnichols]

It all boils down to if there is a buck to be made, someone, somewhere will engage in fraud to make money.

This is not exclusive to the card hobby and it's pretty sad to see. These are the reasons why people just completely get out of the hobby and/or don't trust certain companies/graders/consignors/people because they act in an unprofessional and unscrupulous way just to make a couple of bucks.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by ngnichols

It all boils down to if there is a buck to be made, someone, somewhere will engage in fraud to make money.

This is not exclusive to the card hobby and it's pretty sad to see. These are the reasons why people just completely get out of the hobby and/or don't trust certain companies/graders/consignors/people because they act in an unprofessional and unscrupulous way just to make a couple of bucks.

You, sir, are absolutely correct!

This time last yr, id have defended him against any foe and any argument. Now, I cant say Id put his word greater than or equal to a drug dealer.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

PSA does not require a card to be in their possession before removing it from the pop report. I remember several years ago, there was a thread on the CU message boards about a '66 Killebrew that was graded a 10, but looked like a 5. Most agreed it was a mechanical error. PSA contacted the eBay seller to try and get the card back, the seller refused to cooperate. PSA removed the card from the registry. It does happen.

Several years ago, may not be how it works today. This comes from a lawyer representing the guy with the PSA 6 Green Cobb. There is an outside chance it is a complete fabricated lie, but there was enough contact I do believe some of it. Leaning towards it being truthful.

He said he has a lawyer, the lawyer was handling communication, and went into extreme detail about how they handle it, what they do legally, why and what your options are based on a huge variety of factors based on the review they do having the card in slab, in hand.

Most of it makes/made sense, and it was hard to deny he sounded like he knew what he was talking about, without actually going threw it myself.

I will say, correct though, it is their database, and they can do what they want with it, but at the same time by doing so they open themselves up to new risks that may not be covered by their standard insurance, etc.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Peter,

IMO, we'll never know the whole story.....especially the part about who won it at auction with Brent and where it is today, unless John takes him to court. If that happens, I truly want to have my testimony subpoenaed. I simply keep finding out more and more bc I refuse to let it die after how matters were handled. This is obviously personal to me; not bc of the money, but bc someone I trusted lied to me.

You are so full of shit. No offense. You have the option of free speech, which you can post right here, right now. You can chose to leave out the parts that incriminate you, unless that is 100 percent of what you have to say.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Im absolutely not buying that argument! I never believed it while they were saying it was at PSA during the auction, and I dang sure dont think PSA blessed it after the obvious alterations were revealed. Now, theyre discussing it with somebody who doesnt even own or possess the card? Behind the new owners back? Yeah, BS meter going lunar on that one.

As much as I want to not believe a word you are saying because of how ambiguous you are being, I believe you are pissed, and believe you have SOMETHING to back up what you are claiming, but at the same time I do NOT believe you are ENTIRELY innocent and that there are problems on both side of the fence.

Let's be honest, you popped out of the wood work. Has anyone here met you in person ever?

Both you and him have benefited from your relationship, both of you only say what is required to get each other to budge/move on an issue to resolve your own problems. To me this bull shit middle ground sounds like you are in cahoots and only playing chess against each other in the public forum to see who chickens first.

Spill the guts GUY, or Shut the F*** Up.

Side note. I once supported you, but you are losing that by saying stupid SH1T.

[toppcat]

I remember when this was a fun hobby

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I remember when this was a fun hobby

....every hundred or so posts , someone should show a pre-war baseball card , to lighten the mood......just a thought...

..

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

That is sweet, Mike. What is that? Gold Medal issue of some kind?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[toppcat]

Two thumbs up on that Mike

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

That is sweet, Mike. What is that? Gold Medal issue of some kind?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

....1937 to 1939 Cincinnati Reds Postcards , "Orcajo Photo Art , Dayton Ohio"

...set consists of all the Cincinnati Reds players of those years , and one New York Yankee , who shall go nameless , at the risk of starting yet another thread....

..

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Thanks for the knowledge. You are king of the 30s!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[D.P.Johnson]

Any chance the person who bought the DiMaggio card works for PSA???

[rainier2004]

Has PSA said anything about this or is all the info coming from PWCC?

[ramram]

I made it through this whole thread and still have no idea what's going on. Anybody have the Cliff Notes?

Rob M

[aloondilana]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

And he made some good money on it..at least what most of us would consider good money........and maybe gets the commission back too..? the rich get richer.

I know if i consigned a card that PSA removed from the registry, i would give the money back to the buyer if the buyer wanted their money back since they bought a card that was supposed to be a certain grade and that grade is removed.

No reason to attack me for the post, but the sale is what it is....its not like i am making this up..

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

[slidekellyslide]

yeah, this doesn't look good for PWCC or PSA

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Several years ago, may not be how it works today. This comes from a lawyer representing the guy with the PSA 6 Green Cobb. There is an outside chance it is a complete fabricated lie, but there was enough contact I do believe some of it. Leaning towards it being truthful.

He said he has a lawyer, the lawyer was handling communication, and went into extreme detail about how they handle it, what they do legally, why and what your options are based on a huge variety of factors based on the review they do having the card in slab, in hand.

Most of it makes/made sense, and it was hard to deny he sounded like he knew what he was talking about, without actually going threw it myself.

I will say, correct though, it is their database, and they can do what they want with it, but at the same time by doing so they open themselves up to new risks that may not be covered by their standard insurance, etc.

Are you referring to the scammer that bought the Green Cobb as a novelty item and then got caught trying to sell it as real? I believe his ebay ID has realtopps in it. That person has been caught doing several shady things and I would not trust anything they(man/wife) said.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

Has Brent refunded the ebay buyer's money? Or do we think there was no actual sale? Otherwise, isn't his profit $68,500 minus costs of alteration the first time, and then $4188 the second time?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

yeah, this doesn't look good for PWCC or PSA

They're Teflon, bro. Nothing will change.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

Assuming the card was just removed from the registry for being altered etc...

Someone making more than someone else isnt really cause to get a commission back. Making $1300+ on a card in the matter of a month or so is a lot of money for most of us.

However, returning the money you got on the card and getting the card back puts everyone in the most fairest spot. Assuming the buyer of the card was real and wants the sale canceled.

You could then pursue the auction house in which you bought the card and they could pursue the consignor who could pursue anyone manipulated the value of the card. It goes down the line, taking a bigger profit from sale from someone who made an even bigger profit on an alleged fraud as a gripe is not the way to go.

If they sold the card to a 'legit' buyer, the card sells for less and you lose money. So making money isnt really a cause for a complaint if the reason is the card didnt sell to a 'legit' buyer.

Still need to know the reasons why the grade was removed by PSA. Was it regarded? Was it sent to SGC, whats the current grade now. If the card went to SGC for example, maybe it gets a SGC 4 and SGC advised PSA to remove the card from their registry. Yes this is a very unlikely scenerio, but in this scenerio there was nothing wrong in the sale of the card and all. Thus, its too much speculation right now unless we know why the card was removed from the registry.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

John, If Brent was the owner of the card when he sold it to Cortney he made a lot more than 24k on this card. 75,000 - 6,500= $68,500 (minus cleaning and reholdering costs.) Plus the $4,000 commission he made off of you

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They're Teflon, bro. Nothing will change.

I'll bet Doug Allen and Bill Mastro thought they were Teflon too.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Someone making more than someone else isnt really cause to get a commission back. Making $1300+ on a card in the matter of a month or so is a lot of money for most of us.

However, returning the money you got on the card and getting the card back puts everyone in the most fairest spot. Assuming the buyer of the card was real and wants the sale canceled.

You could then pursue the auction house in which you bought the card and they could pursue the consignor who could pursue anyone manipulated the value of the card. It goes down the line, taking a bigger profit from sale from someone who made a big profit as a gripe is not the way to go.

Yes, please!!!!! Lets do that. LOL. In the end (from the time it was purchased from REA, doctored and submitted to PSA), Brent is the beginning and the end of this card in it's PSA 7 life. Wouldn't that make him the ultimate responsible party in the matter? Granted there is the person who bought it from Brent (me), Goldin Auctions, who would then refer back to his consignor (me), John (who won it in Goldin) and ultimately back to Brent (who dang sure can't go back on his consignor now).

Now we wait for Phillip Abbot. I know you have something "intelligent" (by that I mean demeaning) or attacking to say b/c you believe that your opinion is the only one that matters and when you can't add things up, you get your panties in a wad and start wildly cussing (refer to the last string of comments directed at me............unless of course Leon made you edit them due to the content or you do so when being called out on it).

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Yes, please!!!!! Lets do that. LOL. In the end (from the time it was purchased from REA, doctored and submitted to PSA), Brent is the beginning and the end of this card in it's PSA 7 life. Wouldn't that make him the ultimate responsible party in the matter? Granted there is the person who bought it from Brent (me), Goldin Auctions, who would then refer back to his consignor (me), John (who won it in Goldin) and ultimately back to Brent (who dang sure can't go back on his consignor now).

Now we wait for Phillip Abbot. I know you have something "intelligent" (by that I mean demeaning) or attacking to say b/c you believe that your opinion is the only one that matters and when you can't add things up, you get your panties in a wad and start wildly cussing (refer to the last string of comments directed at me............unless of course Leon made you edit them due to the content or you do so when being called out on it).

I agree, its usually really hard to find who caused the issue in the first place (ie. altered the card, stole the card etc) in the art world or collectible world. Thats how it goes though. When people buy things that arent what they paid for due to fraud or whatever they lose money because its hard to prove and get a timeline on what happened on the item. Fake artwork occurs all the time or artwork that was stolen and sold, only to be returned to the rightful owner and the poor guy that paid for the stolen artwork is out the money

If you bought artwork from someone that it turned out was originally stolen from the Nazis, doesnt the original owner or owners family on many occasions have the right to have the artwork back? what about the guy that paid $400,000 for it at auction. What about the consignor of that stolen artwork. This stuff happens more often than you think and it sucks for the people that paid money and are now in chase mode. The chase mode ends when the next victim in the line has no one else to pursue. Example, buyer at auction house goes after auction house, auction house goes after consignor, consignor goes after the person that sold them the item, that person goes after the next guy. There are law implications as well that may limit things, but just giving a general discussion.

With that being said, it does appear on the issue on subject card, we are able to trace back the origins. So what usually is an almost an impossible process (the chase mode), seems not so impossible in this case.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Now we wait for Phillip Abbot. I know you have something "intelligent" (by that I mean demeaning) or attacking to say b/c you believe that your opinion is the only one that matters and when you can't add things up, you get your panties in a wad and start wildly cussing (refer to the last string of comments directed at me............unless of course Leon made you edit them due to the content or you do so when being called out on it).

I am far from sub-intelligent. Like I mentioned, at one time I backed your opinion/story. You lost that ground.

I now believe you are part of the problem, as noted in that post, because of you are withholding facts you have said you have, while making ridiculous excuses, now on 2 occasions. Period.

On with it, or on with you.

[2dueces]

For the uninformed, are there pictures of this card? Or have they disappeared too?

[rainier2004]

.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Hey quick question. How can we tell this is the same card? I'm curious. Thanks

[Leon]

easiest for me is centering...almost like fingerprints on pre-war....

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Hey quick question. How can we tell this is the same card? I'm curious. Thanks

[Batpig]

You know, now that I'm looking at it again, while the card looks better in some regards, there are obvious new flaws that I would have thought would prevent a 7. There's the weird stripe pattern and the ink for his name appears damaged and has bled somewhat.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Batpig

You know, now that I'm looking at it again, while the card looks better in some regards, there are obvious new flaws that I would have thought would prevent a 7. There's the weird stripe pattern and the ink for his name appears damaged and has bled somewhat.

Just a lower res scan, I don't think any ink bled its just blurry in the scan.

There are still traces of the smudge though, still wouldn't think it would get a 7.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Hey quick question. How can we tell this is the same card? I'm curious. Thanks

If you changed the brightness/contrast of the card you can see that there is still slight shading on the "clean" card that corresponds to the original.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Hey quick question. How can we tell this is the same card? I'm curious. Thanks

You can also see the tape stains on the 4 corners still too!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

You can also see the tape stains on the 4 corners still too!

Yep, those are the fingerprints of this card. No way to deny this is the same exact card when seeing that.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Are you referring to the scammer that bought the Green Cobb as a novelty item and then got caught trying to sell it as real? I believe his ebay ID has realtopps in it. That person has been caught doing several shady things and I would not trust anything they(man/wife) said.

Hey Ben, the guy you're referring to goes by Toppsaholic on eBay. On Net54 he calls himself Realtoppsaholic.

[PhillipAbbott79]

I am curious to know what can be obtained via general inquiry by calling PSA and inquiring about the cert and the cards history.

[Brent Huigens]

The purpose of this post is to share with the group the final status of the '36 DiMaggio card.

While I realize there will always be skeptics, here are the facts. We will not address this issue again after this post.

1) PWCC never owned the card. It was purchased from REA on behalf of a client and graded and sold on behalf of another client. Though we have and always will maintain the confidentiality of our clients, ultimately, we have learned a valuable lesson in keeping an appropriate distance between ourselves and our clients especially around purchasing cards on their behalf.

2) While the auction was live, and when the concerns over restoration were raised by this board, we overnighted the card to Joe Orlando of PSA who had his team verify that the grade of 7 was accurate. This was done through submission number 5751226 and it was received by PSA on 2/7/2017.

3) The card was purchased by a very legitimate buyer based in the Southeastern US. The purchase was paid for promptly, and our team shipped the card to the buyer just like any other purchase. Stating that the sale was illegitimate is incorrect.

4) After the card was sold, PSA reached out to PWCC to express their interest in reconsidering their assessment of the card. After deliberation with PWCC, PSA decided that they wanted to remove the item from the registry. This decision was made while the card was still in the possession of the buyer. According to PSA, this is standard policy to address cards in circulation they no longer wish to recognize.

5) Following PSA's decision to remove the item from the registry, PWCC has been in communication with the buyer and made it clear that we would accept a return of the card for a full refund.

6) Last evening the buyer decided to return the card. When PWCC receives the return, we will refund the buyer's payment. Because PWCC was the entity that got the card graded (albeit on behalf of a client), PWCC is shouldering the costs of the loss.

Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions, LLC

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

The purpose of this post is to share with the group the final status of the '36 DiMaggio card.

While I realize there will always be skeptics, here are the facts. We will not address this issue again after this post.

1) PWCC never owned the card. It was purchased from REA on behalf of a client and graded and sold on behalf of another client. Though we have and always will maintain the confidentiality of our clients, ultimately, we have learned a valuable lesson in keeping an appropriate distance between ourselves and our clients especially around purchasing cards on their behalf.

2) While the auction was live, and when the concerns over restoration were raised by this board, we overnighted the card to Joe Orlando of PSA who had his team verify that the grade of 7 was accurate. This was done through submission number 5751226 and it was received by PSA on 2/7/2017.

3) The card was purchased by a very legitimate buyer based in the Southeastern US. The purchase was paid for promptly, and our team shipped the card to the buyer just like any other purchase. Stating that the sale was illegitimate is incorrect.

4) After the card was sold, PSA reached out to PWCC to express their interest in reconsidering their assessment of the card. After deliberation with PWCC, PSA decided that they wanted to remove the item from the registry. This decision was made while the card was still in the possession of the buyer. According to PSA, this is standard policy to address cards in circulation they no longer wish to recognize.

5) Following PSA's decision to remove the item from the registry, PWCC has been in communication with the buyer and made it clear that we would accept a return of the card for a full refund.

6) Last evening the buyer decided to return the card. When PWCC receives the return, we will refund the buyer's payment. Because PWCC was the entity that got the card graded (albeit on behalf of a client), PWCC is shouldering the costs of the loss.

Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions, LLC

None of this done to explain anything other than why we will see the card again soon in another upcoming PWCC auction (likely with another grade).

"PWCC never owned the card. It was purchased from REA on behalf of a client and graded and sold on behalf of another client." No idea what that means. PWCC purchases a card from REA for Client 1 and then submits the card, and gets it regraded, and then resells the card on behalf of Client 2? Huh? Well who soaked the card? And how did the card get from one PWCC client to another. All smells terrible to me.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

The purpose of this post is to share with the group the final status of the '36 DiMaggio card.

While I realize there will always be skeptics, here are the facts. We will not address this issue again after this post.

1) PWCC never owned the card. It was purchased from REA on behalf of a client and graded and sold on behalf of another client. Though we have and always will maintain the confidentiality of our clients, ultimately, we have learned a valuable lesson in keeping an appropriate distance between ourselves and our clients especially around purchasing cards on their behalf.

2) While the auction was live, and when the concerns over restoration were raised by this board, we overnighted the card to Joe Orlando of PSA who had his team verify that the grade of 7 was accurate. This was done through submission number 5751226 and it was received by PSA on 2/7/2017.

3) The card was purchased by a very legitimate buyer based in the Southeastern US. The purchase was paid for promptly, and our team shipped the card to the buyer just like any other purchase. Stating that the sale was illegitimate is incorrect.

4) After the card was sold, PSA reached out to PWCC to express their interest in reconsidering their assessment of the card. After deliberation with PWCC, PSA decided that they wanted to remove the item from the registry. This decision was made while the card was still in the possession of the buyer. According to PSA, this is standard policy to address cards in circulation they no longer wish to recognize.

5) Following PSA's decision to remove the item from the registry, PWCC has been in communication with the buyer and made it clear that we would accept a return of the card for a full refund.

6) Last evening the buyer decided to return the card. When PWCC receives the return, we will refund the buyer's payment. Because PWCC was the entity that got the card graded (albeit on behalf of a client), PWCC is shouldering the costs of the loss.

Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions, LLC

Brent sold me the card after National on '15 after it was shopped around by multiple big names in this hobby. When it didnt sell for the asking price at National, Brent approached me with the deal that we made. I will directly dispute the fact that they say that Brent never owned the card. His words to me were that it was his and that he thought it would fit well in my collection EVEN THOUGH HE HATED TO LET IT GO.....key phrase "the card is mine and ill let you have it for 75k, but please keep the sale quiet."

Brent, i have all the facts from the purchase. You won it, you had it doctored and you sold it to me stating that IT WAS YOUR CARD. I dont delete 75k documentation, texts, emails, accounting, etc. I think ive proved that via another thread regarding this card. Would you like to see the messages from Betsy while you were on a few of your biweekly vacations......when she said you went fishing with your dad? Those messages are interesting.

It is exactly for times like this that I let people draw their own conclusions about me. Apparently you thought that a backwoods AL redneck wouldnt keep records.

How many times did i have to correct your evaluation of my account when i was consigning over 250k/mo with you? Of those times, how many times was your math off to the point that i had to tell you that according to my records, I OWED YOU more than you accounted for. Did you never pick up on how deep my records go when i took every month to the penny?

I still have about 3 yrs of spreadsheets and a nice little text where i won a jordan 10, the holder was tampered with and you asked that i return it to you. You refunded my money, but didnt tell me for over a yr that the card wasnt actually the card psa graded.....that someone had pulled the 10 and inserted a 9. Im sure you try to keep as much of that stuff as quiet as you can as well.

Try again.

[bigfish]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

The purpose of this post is to share with the group the final status of the '36 DiMaggio card.

While I realize there will always be skeptics, here are the facts. We will not address this issue again after this post.

1) PWCC never owned the card. It was purchased from REA on behalf of a client and graded and sold on behalf of another client. Though we have and always will maintain the confidentiality of our clients, ultimately, we have learned a valuable lesson in keeping an appropriate distance between ourselves and our clients especially around purchasing cards on their behalf.

2) While the auction was live, and when the concerns over restoration were raised by this board, we overnighted the card to Joe Orlando of PSA who had his team verify that the grade of 7 was accurate. This was done through submission number 5751226 and it was received by PSA on 2/7/2017.

3) The card was purchased by a very legitimate buyer based in the Southeastern US. The purchase was paid for promptly, and our team shipped the card to the buyer just like any other purchase. Stating that the sale was illegitimate is incorrect.

4) After the card was sold, PSA reached out to PWCC to express their interest in reconsidering their assessment of the card. After deliberation with PWCC, PSA decided that they wanted to remove the item from the registry. This decision was made while the card was still in the possession of the buyer. According to PSA, this is standard policy to address cards in circulation they no longer wish to recognize.

5) Following PSA's decision to remove the item from the registry, PWCC has been in communication with the buyer and made it clear that we would accept a return of the card for a full refund.

6) Last evening the buyer decided to return the card. When PWCC receives the return, we will refund the buyer's payment. Because PWCC was the entity that got the card graded (albeit on behalf of a client), PWCC is shouldering the costs of the loss.

Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions, LLC

huh???

Every post you make seems to make your position weaker. Eventually you will understand that most people aren't stupid.

Are you shaking a magic eightball before you make a response?